MSSQL MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool shows 'detailed index usage statistics' but doesn't describe what 'detailed' entails, the format of output, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance or permission considerations. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does and its goal, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of analyzing database indexes and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed statistics' include, how results are presented, or any behavioral aspects like read-only nature or potential performance impact. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured output info, more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between 'connectionString' and 'connectionName' or clarifying 'unused' criteria. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show detailed index usage statistics to identify unused or underutilized indexes.' It specifies the verb ('show'), resource ('index usage statistics'), and goal ('identify unused or underutilized indexes'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_indexes' or 'find_missing_indexes,' which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_indexes' (which might list indexes without usage stats) or 'find_missing_indexes' (which might suggest new indexes), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.